Nashville Great Books Discussion Group

A reader's group devoted to the discussion of meaningful books.

Monday, February 24, 2014

4-04.1 MOLIERE: The Misanthrope (Act 1)

The Great Books Series forms the heart of a reading program that covers many of the classics of Western civilization. But what lies at the heart of the Great Books? The Bible and Shakespeare are repeated in all five sets of readings. Plato has four readings and Aristotle has three. Moliere is represented by one play: The Misanthrope. These readings (the Bible, Shakespeare, Plato, Aristotle and Moliere) don’t seem to have much in common at first glance. They cover religion, history, literature and philosophy. But the common thread running through all these readings is called The Great Conversation. That’s how we’ll approach Moliere this week.
How does Moliere fit into The Great Conversation? For starters, Moliere wrote in French. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. Shakespeare wrote in English. Plato and Aristotle wrote in Greek. But all the Great Books readings are English translations from the original text. So this Great Books set is intended for English-language readers. Having crossed the language barrier we still bump up against another tough question: what does Moliere have in common with, say, Plato? It’s easy to see the connection between Moliere and Shakespeare. Even though Moliere was French and Shakespeare was English, they were both dramatists. They both spoke the same “language” of drama because they both wrote plays. They would have understood one another. But how can Moliere carry on a Great Conversation and “talk to” Plato? Well, if we look closely at the dialogs of Plato it’s not that hard to imagine them as plays instead of philosophical treatises. Plato was one of the most dramatic of the philosophers. His works are almost as much poetry as they are philosophy. It’s harder to make the connection with Aristotle because Aristotle is so straightforward. He’s among the most un-dramatic and un-poetic of the philosophers. And yet even Aristotle and Moliere can talk to one another.
Consider this passage from Alceste in Moliere’s play The Misanthrope: “It chills my heart to see the ways men come to terms with evil nowadays. Sometimes I swear I’m moved to flee and find some desert land unfouled by humankind.” What would Aristotle have to say about that? Plenty. In his work on Politics, Aristotle says “the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature…” Aristotle thinks Alceste is misguided when he wants to go somewhere far away from human society. Aristotle agrees that life in society isn’t always pleasant. But he thinks more like Alceste’s friend, Philinte. Philinte says “in polite society, custom decrees that we show certain outward courtesies…” These “courtesies” Philinte is talking about are the same things Aristotle calls “a social instinct implanted in all men by nature.” This is a serious conversation we have going on here.
Over the years Great Books authors have taken both sides of this question. Writers like Rousseau and Thoreau agree with Alceste. They think society is a corrupting influence. Their solution is to get back to nature. This may be what the Bible calls The Garden of Eden. Of course Aristotle disagrees with that solution. So does Plato. They believe we live in a real world of people in civilization. We have to bloom where we’re planted, so to speak. In The Apology we find that Socrates had the option to go into exile. He could either leave the civilization of the Athens he loved, or else face the death penalty. Socrates chose the death penalty. This choice is going too far for Philinte. For him philosophy is all well and good in its place but (he says) “it hardly seems a hanging matter to me.” He wouldn’t die for it. It is for these reasons and others that the Great Books thinks Moliere has earned his place at The Great Conversation table.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

WEBER: The Spirit of Capitalism (Four Theories of Work)

Why are we here? What should we be doing? How is the best way to spend our time? These are questions some people never ask. The very first reading in the Great Books Series is Rothschild’s Fiddle by Chekhov. The main character, an old man named Jacob, ponders his own life and this is what he found: “Life had flowed past without profit, without enjoyment; gone aimlessly, leaving nothing to show for it. The future was empty. And if you looked back there was only all the awful waste of money that sent shivers down your spine. Why couldn’t a man live without all that loss and waste?” This is the question Weber tries to answer in this reading.
How can we live our own lives without all that loss and waste? In last week’s reading Weber laid the foundation by defining Traditionalism: “a man does not by nature wish to earn more and more money, but simply to live as he is accustomed to live and to earn as much as is necessary for that purpose.” In this view, people work only as much as they have to work so they can pay the bills. The rest of their time they would rather devote to leisure activities. That may be true, but it’s only one view of work and leisure. Weber lays out four alternatives for consideration.
Theory one: we work because work is the primary purpose we’re here on this earth. This is what the early Christians believed: “Work hard in your calling. The most important thing was that labor came to be considered in itself the end of life, ordained as such by God. St. Paul’s saying “He who will not work shall not eat” holds unconditionally for everyone. Unwillingness to work is symptomatic of the lack of grace.” In the book of Genesis Adam and Eve tilled the Garden of Eden even before The Fall (when they were banished from the Garden) and had to work by the sweat of their brows. Under this theory work is not a punishment, it fulfills our human nature.
Theory two: we work to maintain our lifestyles and have enough leisure time left over to devote to other activities. Weber says that according to “Thomas Aquinas labor is only necessary according to natural reason or prudence, for the maintenance of the individual and community.” Presumably this extra leisure time would be used to develop our minds, refresh our bodies and renew our spirits. Working beyond what is necessary takes away from these important activities.
Theory three: we work because God told us to work. The Puritan view differs from both the early Christian and the medieval Catholic views stated above. The Puritan theologian Richard Baxter writes: “wealth does not exempt anyone from the unconditional command. Even the wealthy shall not eat without working, for even though they do not need to labor to support their own needs, there is God’s commandment which they, like the poor, must obey.” In other words, even if a person has all the money they’ll ever need, they should still work; because God says so.
Theory four: we work because it molds us into a certain kind of person. The habits we gain from working are good for us, apart from the paycheck which helps us earn a living. “A man without a calling lacks the systematic, methodical character which is demanded by worldly asceticism.” Weber believes this is the modern Protestant view of work. Workers in modern capitalist societies develop certain values and Weber thinks “They set the clean and solid comfort of the middle-class home as the ideal.” Some people like this ideal; others hate it. Is “the clean and solid comfort of the middle-class home” the highest rung of human evolution? Or is it all just a trick to keep our nose to the grindstone, doing jobs we hate in order to maintain a normal lifestyle like other middle-class people? Which is right? Readers must decide for themselves.

Saturday, February 08, 2014

WEBER: The Spirit of Capitalism (Time is Money)

“Time is money” –Benjamin Franklin. It would be hard to think of a more unlikely quote than that to follow Euripides’ play about Medea. Time is money? How does that possibly tie in with Medea? And yet as Max Weber begins explaining the spirit of capitalism this connection becomes clear. Jason tries to persuade Medea that it’s in her own best interest for him to marry another woman. He uses this argument: you and our two boys will be able to live in luxury and comfort. You’ll have more economic security because I’ll be marrying into royalty. Our sons will get the finest Greek education. It’s a win-win situation. He can’t understand why Medea doesn’t want to take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity.
Jason’s argument boils down to Utilitarianism. Utilitarian values are judged strictly by their usefulness. And there’s the connection between Jason and Benjamin Franklin. Max Weber points out: “All Franklin’s moral attitudes are colored with utilitarianism. Honesty is useful because it assures credit; so are punctuality, industry, frugality, and that is the reason they are virtues.” For a utilitarian, virtues are virtues because they’re useful. In that sense Jason is a utilitarian. He saw a good opportunity when Medea offered to help him get the Golden Fleece. So he took it. Then a better opportunity comes along and he wants to take that one too. For Jason this makes perfect business sense. When opportunity knocks, answer the door.
Question: how could Jason have been so wrong about how Medea would react to his proposal? Answer: Medea isn’t some business deal. She’s his wife and uses a different set of values. Max Weber wants to explore the values created by modern capitalism. He says “The capitalistic economy of the present day (1905) is an immense cosmos into which the individual is born, and which presents itself to him, at least as an individual, as an unalterable order of things in which he must live. It forces the individual, insofar as he is involved in the system of market relationships, to conform to capitalistic rules of action.” This is true. People born into a capitalist society will “conform to capitalistic rules of action.” But this is true of any system. People born into a communist society will conform to communistic rules. People born into a socialist society will conform to socialistic rules. Weber wants to discover what kind of rules capitalism uses; what kind of people it produces. This is what he calls the “spirit” of capitalism.
Let’s first consider what capitalism is not. Weber believes “The most important opponent with which the spirit of capitalism…has had to struggle…is traditionalism.” By Traditionalism Weber means: “A man does not “by nature” wish to earn more and more money, but simply to live as he is accustomed to live and to earn as much as is necessary for that purpose.” In other words “people only work as long as they are poor.” If given a choice between working more hours for more money, or working less hours making the same amount of money, most people (unless they’re really poor) would choose more time off (as long as their standard of living stays the same). For Weber, this doesn’t mean people are lazy. It’s simply human nature. Most people only work because they have to pay the bills, not because work is fun. Once the house is paid off and folks have a certain amount of economic security, their interests turn to more leisure-time activities and they quit working. In the meantime, how does society convince people to work when they’d rather play? It isn’t easy. It’s kind of like Jason trying to convince Medea that it’s in her own best interests for him to marry another woman. He has to change her whole definition of what’s in her own best interests. When Ben Franklin says time is money he lays out the “spirit” of capitalism, American-style: work hard, play hard, get ahead, retire early.

Saturday, February 01, 2014

EURIPIDES: Medea and Our Inner Nature

In last week’s reading the German philosopher Schopenhauer said that our inner nature is indestructible. A thoughtful reader would take time to ponder that term “inner nature” and ask if we really have one. The ancient Greek playwright Euripides pondered this question too. But he seems to have thought about human nature in a totally different context from Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer wants to know what is it about us that will continue to exist after we die. Euripides wants to know what is it that drives us while we’re still living in this world.
Medea is one of the most memorable characters in Greek literature. She’s a barbarian (non-Greek) by birth but has come to Greece with Jason of the Argonauts fame. She helped him escape with the Golden Fleece and saved his life. But in the process she brought death and grief to her own family. Now she’s been betrayed by Jason, who wants to marry a Greek princess. Medea has borne Jason two sons. As the play begins, their nurse gives some clues about Medea’s inner nature: “It's obvious the cloud of bitter grief rising inside her is only just the start. As her temper grows even more intense, it will soon catch fire. She's a passionate soul, hard to restrain. What will she do next…?” Is this intense passion for revenge the real Medea (her “inner nature”); or has Medea been driven out of her normal nature by an unfaithful husband who broke his vows to her in order to climb the exclusive Greek social ladder of the ruling class?
The nurse has seen this ruling class up close and she wants no part of it. In her opinion “It's better to get used to living life as an equal common person. Anyway, I don't want a grand life for myself; just to grow old with some security. They say a moderate life's the best of all, a far better choice for mortal men. Going for too much brings no benefits.” All she asks for is a nice quiet life with a good pension plan and a peaceful old age. Does this express her real inner nature? And a related question: is the inner nature of the middle class different from the ruling class?
In the nurse’s view, being king would be hard work. And King Kreon does have many worries. Right now he’s worried about Medea. He wants her gone and tells her to clear out immediately. Why? He gets straight to the point and tells her: “I'm afraid of you. I won't conceal the truth. There's a good chance you might well instigate some fatal harm against my daughter. Many things lead me to this conclusion: you're a clever woman, very experienced in evil ways; you're grieving the loss of your husband's bed; and from reports I hear you're making threats to take revenge on Jason, on his bride, and on her father. Before that happens, I'm taking some precautions.” Does Kreon have the inner nature of a king? He can see that Medea poses a threat to his kingdom, his daughter, and himself. Is this his inner nature talking? Being king is hard.
Finally, there’s Jason. He tries to reason with Medea and claims it’s her own fault: “Right now is not the first time I've observed how a harsh temper makes all things worse; impossibly so. It's happened often. You could've stayed here in this land and house, if only you'd agreed to the arrangements, showed some patience with those in command. Now you're exiled for your stupid chatter.” Jason tells Medea that her big mouth gets her into trouble. This is a bad thing to say to a proud “barbarian” princess who also knows witchcraft. Jason’s rational inner nature only adds fuel to the fire of Medea’s irrational inner nature. Jason tries to use reason against Medea’s instinctive fury. But hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Schopenhauer defined our inner nature via reason and showed why we shouldn’t fear death. Well, he was wrong, says Euripides. Reason was never Medea’s true inner nature and is not what really drives us, deep down.